Originally Posted by caveman-jim
It was nearly impossible for Sandy Bridge graphics not to improve on the previous generation.
As far as your arguments of Llano CPU sucks, doesn't advance, that quite possibly the weakest set of justifications for a hate-on I've ever heard, without any evidence to even remotely back up the claims.
Without independent benchmarks, hardware samples in hand, and pricing, it makes absolutely no sense to say Llano sucks. What if there is a quad core APU with 6600 performance level graphics for $200. Build that from Intel and it costs you much more to get the same platform performance. Sure you can buy a single product for the same money, that will have the ability to output to a display and have better CPU performance in some benchmarks, but put that in someones hand who wants to do everything on a PC and they'll ask for a dGPU. There goes, power, performance and price advantages, as well as form factor. But it does give another sale to AMD.
Intel based PC's don't always have discrete graphics, but when they do, they prefer AMD.
Sorry you consider REAL reasons to upgrade, weak. I'm sorry, lack of advance doesn't make upgrade cut. That's a simple enough fact for you to have to swallow whether you like it or not. WHY should I upgrade to the same as before? That's a SILLY position of yours, cavey. It's the SAME, not worthy of upgrade for anybody with a 2 year old computer, it won't be any faster at all. I guess things like reasons to "upgrade" are something you've forgotten about? Llano isn't an upgrade. It's more of the same. Sure the GPU will be faster, but the CPU sucks.
Edit: And as I said, "sucks" is better used for "zero advance" then your place of "it advanced, but not enough for me".